I have no ill will towards the gay community, and I happen to have quite a few
gay friends. I can understand their feelings in this issue to a degree, but
this article does bring up a good point. If a church's doctrine specifies
homosexual acts are a sin, why would a homosexual person want to be married in
their church? The article also stated there are churches out there willing to
perform marriages for homosexual couples, but the writer quoted in the article
didn't seem to think that was enough. Why is it so important to force others
into their frame of thinking? Is it just so they can be married wherever they
please? Let religious practitioners believe what they believe. If the gay
community wants to be treated in a certain way, they need to afford religious
communities the same respect, and vice versa. No more anti-gay stuff from
religions either. I believe that homosexuality is wrong. But as long as people
are going to do it, I still need and want to respect them and reach out in
fellowship. I can't define a person by what I consider to be their most
conspicuous sin.

I am an Atheist (not gay, but that's beside the point) but I am all for the
churches right to refuse to marry a couple that goes against their beliefs (just
as much as I wouldn't expect a unemployed vegan to look for work in an abattoir)
It's wrong (in my opinion) to force someone to do something they aren't
comfortable with.

It's too bad that government of any kind is regulating marriage. Marriage is a
social construct, and social organizations should be free to define marriage in
any way they wish. We would be better served if government got out of the
marriage business and focused on regulating rights of persons who choose to
enter into social unions. But, government is in the business of regulating
marriage, and that isn't likely to change.

This is a goood example of the next step for the gay rights folks. Since we have
enacted hate crime laws that make it a criminal act to even speak out against
homosexuality as a minority, enforcement of that law will be combined with the
legality of state laws for marriage. The next step is to bring legal action
against any church which teaches the practice of homosexuality is a sin in the
eyes of God. When that happens no church will be able to preach God's laws from
the pulpit. That is the plan of gay rights folks to force not only acceptance of
a deviant lifestyle, but total state and religious support of it. IIf a
person truly believes a church is of God, then doesn't it follow that We must
follow the teachings of that God? If it be of man then it makes no difference
what is taught. If it be of God then man can have no control of what is taught,
if it is to remain of God. The gay rights folks should take it up with God. But
only if they believe it is of God.

If you
enact laws that prevent SOME religions from performing same-sex marriages, you
are infringing on that religion's freedom of religion. If you are willing to
deny another religion the freedom to practice it as they see fit, you run the
risk of losing your own religious freedom.

In the end, the freedom to
practice your religion does not give you the right to infringe on anyone else's
freedom - in any arena, civil or religious.

The first Amendment does
NOT give religion the right to infringe on anybody's freedom.

This article is a prime example of baseless fearmongering.Gays will never
marry in the temple. The California Supreme Court decision invalidating Prop. 8
stated that no church or clergyman would be force to perform gay ceremonies.
The recently passed NY law allowing gay marriage said the same.Even if by
some miracle some court ruled that churches, we LDS, along with other groups
would tie that decision up in court appeals until a constitutional amendment
(state or federal) that would allow churches to marry whom they will in their
own facilities could be passed. Such an amendment would get passed at light
speed. Many gays would support it as well. No politician would dare oppose it.
It would have overwhelming public support. The public may even support gays
being allowed to marry civilly, but FAR FAR more people believe that churches
have a right to deny marrying gays if it goes against their doctrine, especially
since gays could go to City Hall, a Vegas wedding chapel or other gay-friendly
churches to get married.

Same-sex marriage in NO WAY threatens
religion. Religion is FAR FAR more of a threat to the equal civil rights of
gays.

Before "pagan" and others come on here and tell us how wrong we all
are and how this won't happen, please checkout what almost happened in the
"progressive" UK recently: legislation was voted on to take the
authority of performing marriages away from churches who refused to perform gay
marriages in their churches and temples. Where is the outcry from the gay
marriage supporters who swore this would never happen and they wouldn't support
it? And the slippery slope just keeps getting slipperier.

The "gay rights" movement has never been about equal rights under the
law. It has been and continues to be all about forcing acceptance and societal
approval - of activities that a generation ago were not only not called rights
but were in fact crimes through out the nation.

Participants in
homosexual activity have never been an economically deprived minority grouping.

The goals of the movement have grown ever more far-reaching, being
redefined every decade: Legality. Employment. Housing. Public accommodations
(e.g. Boy Scouts). School curricula. Civil unions. Gay marriage.

The
ultimate goal is forcing the Mormons, the Catholics, the Evangelicals and the
Muslims to allow gay marriage in churches, temples and mosques.

The
Supreme Court cannot be depended upon to stop that last step. It opened the
door to the temples the day it found that states could not make sodomy a
crime.

New York passed gay marriage with a religious exemption.
Expect immediate lawsuits.

Federal politicians who have avoided this
issue by saying it should be left to the states are either fools or
charlatans.

This will come down to an amendment to the US
Constitution...which takes 2/3 of both houses of Congress to propose.

Howard Chua-Eoan was speaking for himself, not the "gay community."
It was an *opinion* piece. And though there may be other gays who share his
opinion, I wager that the great majority of gays--especially those who seek to
marry--would want nothing to do with institutions which deride their love. They
certainly wouldn't want to get married under the legally-compelled
"blessings" of those institutions.

The whole battle for gay
marriage is predicated on separation of church and state. As more than one
person has pointed out elsewhere, for gays to insist that government should
force religions into performing gay marriages takes away the very basis for
legalizing gay marriage. It breaches the separation.

Your churches
and temples will be inviolate, as long as you don't try to dictate public policy
from within them.

It is true that in both the UK and Canada governments have come close to taking
marriage authority away from churches to appease the LGBT activists. The
actvists in the U.S. are gearing up for such attempts here by writing articles
like the one quoted that separates belief, faith or obedience to any religious
principles from the legal right to have a marriage performed that will be
recognized by civil authorities. The Constitution's freedom of religion can be
construed as only protecting believers from laws that would dictate which
religious beliefs they must hold, or where they must worship, but not
guaranteeing that religious believers are free to choose their beliefs and act
on them. These are dangerous times for religious freedom.

The Mormon church was almost destroyed in the 19th century by the US government
dicating what forms of marriage could be performed in LDS temples. It could
absolutely happen again. Even if most gays don't have an anti-church agenda, the
militant minority definitely does. Lawsuits are inevitable, and we are just one
liberal swing vote away from it in the Supreme Court. The LDS is church is not
anti-gay. It is merely trying to protect religious freedom from encroachment by
anti-church forces masquerading as pro-gay.

Fred Vader..legislation was voted on to take the authority of performing
marriages away from churches who refused to perform gay marriages in their
churches and temples.

LDS4See my comments above regarding a
constitutional amendment. Also, outside of the US and Canada, LDS temple
weddings are not recognized as legally binding and LDS couples must first be
legally married in a public wedding or at City Hall and THEN be sealed in the
temple. IOW, exactly as Fred's nightmare scenario envisions. So even if the
nightmare becomes a reality in the US, it won't be the end of the world since
most LDS live under it currently without batting an eye. Again, this so-called
nightmare won't happen because the citizens won't allow it and would pass a
constitutional amendment to prevent it.

jimhaleThe Supreme
Court cannot be depended upon to stop that last step. It opened the door to the
temples the day it found that states could not make sodomy a crime.

LDS4Gays makeup 2% of the population, women make up 51%. How successful
have women been in suing the Church to be ordained to the priesthood?

Because...Marriage is a contract that is enforced by making it binding
in court. It allows you to sue for divorce if the contract is broken protecting
not only the spouse but children too with property, alimony, child support, and
visiting rights.Marriage changes the tax code since the contract is
considered long term.

It is essential that all religions are free to
define marriage anyway they choose. Government should only be involved with
making it binding in court.

The Constitution protects the rights of churches to not marry whoever they don't
want to. That's why the LDS church is free to not marry... anyone they don't
want to. Even unworthy LDS members aren't allowed to marry in the temple. So how
would gay people accomplish something that has never been an issue? For that
matter who would support it? The Constitution says churches can not marry
whoever they don't want to. The vast majority of people support that position,
including the majority of those who support same sex marriage.

Allen: The Bible clearly teaches that all homosexual acts are sinful, as is all
human sexual behavior outside the covenant of marriage. The Bible also
teaches against polygamy: and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed
thee: If any be blameless, the husband of ONE wife, having faithful children not
accused of riot or unruly.(Titus 1:5,6) 1 Timothy 3:2. A bishop then must be
blameless, the husband of ONE wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to
hospitality, apt to teach;(1 Tim 3:2).

Will the Mormon Church
evtually give women the Priesthood as liberal Christians do?